This is about the "western ideologies" manifested by current pop music.
I feel very embarassed by knowing that western music is pretty much about rubbing private parts all over the place. OK, I am not that much into censorsip, but this is silly: Does the music biz really expect that cute rapping about pimps and whatnot will work well in Saudi Arabia or in Iran? The main body of modern pop is about creative use of orifices. Is this is the best the western hemisphere can come up with? _________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Some parts of the music biz probably gets undeserved flak. There are companies struggling to get a foothold, trying to establish new distribution channels and competing with different products. The big picture is not at all that bad and all the major players in the this game are not all evil henchmen of Satan._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Some parts of the music biz probably gets undeserved flak. There are companies struggling to get a foothold, trying to establish new distribution channels and competing with different products. The big picture is not at all that bad and all the major players in the this game are not all evil henchmen of Satan.

exactly... and i think artists are not blame-free.. i think a lot of artists are living in a dream world where people will give them money to make whatever music they feel like making - to pay them to be 'who they are' - which is just not reality

unlike in any other business, musicians feel they are extra-special, they're work is extra-special..somehow, almost divine...

while this may be true on some level, in the end music is a langauge that is common and understood by all and thus must communicate to all and is not at all as 'precious' or 'other wordly' or super-natural as artists tend to think..and thus, should not be guarded so closely

electronic musicians are the most guilty of this in many ways...expecting that since they have 'seen the light of electronics' the rest of society ought to follow along or must be seen as dysfunctional if society does not follow along, altho a dash of truth in there

but, this sets up a defacto adversarial situation between those who run the music 'biz' and those who create the music and even between the artist and audience, where the artists sees her or his job to 'educate the masses'...a kind of
elitist position

a more co-operative approach and practical is to work toward a natural transistion from the 20th to 21st century

but this does not happen over night....and yes requires patience and even a bit of 'compromise' [a dirty word i presume]

and also requires translation..i.e. you can;t expect that pop 'hooks' will suddenly be about great synth lines or clever compositions or have no vocals etc etc... you have to slowly translate the signifying characters of one into the other

but perhaps the electronic/digital revolution can make inroads into these convertional areas of society one step at a time

i am involved in this, as for the last 3 years i have dedicated all of my time to bringing in the insights and discoveries of non-linear, electronic./digital music production to mix and mingle with traditional linear styles of songwriting/recording ....
with the explicit goal of transitioning the two 'schools of thought' into a new hybrid of both
'
an 'electronic/electric music' that retains all of the essential characteristics of both 20th and 21st century music

i am not the first by any means to do this at all ..

but i am making my small contribution and it feels al ot more progressive and co-operative [and yes potentiallymore lucrative] than acting like an electronic luddite pining for the heyday of electronic music and complaining and bitchng about pop music and crying about the RIAA and major labels and playing live shows to 20 people

but this requires that artists think outside themselves and find a way to co-operate with the reality of the day and not shelter ourselves in a intellectual/philosophical safety blanket, wishing away the days and sending out a lot of negative vibes about the music business and just pretending/wishing things were as we want them now..as if we are trying to eliminate all other ideas about music but our own [i.e pepole still like rock n roll in the rawest 1950's format]

so i suggest it is time to move electronic music out of the academic halls and mindless raves and start to morph the music business with these unique 'electronic' ideas and throw them in the mix of all the other ideas

Hey Paul! This was a wonderful posting with many excellent points. I hope we can elaborate in this.
My starting point in this thread was the music industry and this excellent article by Henley. This is a part of the infrastructure we are partof and dependent on. We really should follow up Henley in some way or another. If not we will probably end up with no rights at all. The RIAA might be doing their work in a different work, but the RIAA is not the enemy and at least the RIAA is more or less doing what they are supposed to do. The main problem is the systemic nature and structural rules of the business and the state of it all after "western hemisphere" pop has become the only product left. You saw what is happening in Germany? This WILL happen again.
The main bulk of your post is aabout who we are, selfimage and how we can work this .. in order to be assimilated into modern culture. In some ways the battle is already won and probably this happened in the early 70s or so. Electronic music is soon just music and not anything special. You guys can expect me to start posting alarmist postings about the preservation of acoustic instruments and classical music around the same time next year.
If we have a problem, we have to check that with Houston, it might first of all be an attitude of being different and alienating ourselves from the rest of the music industry. And ..second.. we are sharing the main problem with the rest of the bulk of composers and artists out there.. and that is the business itself. It is my opinion that we should not leave it to the major labels to redefine the business. We have seen how that works in other industries._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

The big picture is not at all that bad and all the major players in the this game are not all evil henchmen of Satan.

I suspect that we like to act like they are becuase, at least to some degree, deep down we acknolege that we arent the one's being offered lucrative deals, it's those genital-rubbing proponents who are. I wonder how differently these opinions would be if these forums were filled with various accounts about how well our contracts and Euphonix consoles and scoring gigs are going. Just a thought._________________∆ Cyx ∆

"Yeah right, who's the only one here who knows secret illegal ninja moves from the government?"
-Napoleon Dynamite

I was thinking about like. many of the new attempts at creating distribution companies for physical products like CDs. In Europe and the US a lot of new companies are starting up, aiming for making a better distribution service. And these companies all have very obvious problems. First of all these are getting there money from selling to retailers. The big labels are killing the retailers and some major players in the distribution business are forcing the retailers to sell specific products. OK.. what we have here is a situation where new players are trying to force new life into the retail business. This is good. As I have stated before.. the ability to get the right product out there to the right customer is what we want. Many industries have managed to do this. A new strong distribution business which does not play by the rules set by the ruling demons will provide us with a direct channel to the market._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

From what I have observed, the outlets are there, the only issue is getting customers into these outlets, to created the demand. If one knew that if they put 3000 units in any one of the available outlets, there would be enough demand to move them in a matter of a month, I think things would be very different. That would be an outlet that works, that achieves a goal, and can be counted on. It all boils down to a consumer laying down money for your product. With no demand, the best outlets, the best avenues, will be of no value._________________∆ Cyx ∆

"Yeah right, who's the only one here who knows secret illegal ninja moves from the government?"
-Napoleon Dynamite

a more co-operative approach and practical is to work toward a natural transistion from the 20th to 21st century

That's really a personal aesthetic choice. It's practical for you because that's the kind of music you want to make. I make experimental music. I try and push the limits as far as I can, but I don't expect the mainstream to like it or buy it or even consider it music. There are plenty of people interested in avant-garde, always have been. Maybe not enough to make experimental artists rich and/or famous but enough to feed them.

Quote:

but this does not happen over night....and yes requires patience and even a bit of 'compromise' [a dirty word i presume]

When it means reducing your art to a state of palatability without any inspiration or inclination to do so besides the desire for widespread acceptance then yes, a dirty word. I'm not saying you are doing this, but that's what that kind of compromise would be for me.

Quote:

but i am making my small contribution and it feels al ot more progressive and co-operative [and yes potentiallymore lucrative] than acting like an electronic luddite pining for the heyday of electronic music and complaining and bitchng about pop music and crying about the RIAA and major labels and playing live shows to 20 people

Ya know what I feel like? An artist who couldn't give two shits about the RIAA and major labels because they have no control of my creative freedom and I grin ecstatically while playing to crowds of twenty because I never thought that even one other person would be as into such bizarre music as I am. That is more valuable to me than record sales.

Permit me to rant a little. This topic compels me to.
Why must we conform to the "reality of the day" in order to be anything other than bitter dweebs? That seems to me a rather harsh evaluation of what are fast becoming pioneers of microcultures with their own support networks. The number of CD-R labels out there is uncountable. Many, many people are taking the initiative and creating outlets for their own music because they will not compromise their artistic integrity. Sure, a lot of them are elitist assholes and it's a mostly clumsy undertaking but it's different and it's starting to work.

Am I the only one here who thinks we need to completely tear away from the established order that regards art as a commodity? This issue runs much deeper for me than just artist's getting their due in the form of checks. The U.S. is spiritually bankrupt and I think it's largely due to our total disrespect for creativity, experimentation and humour. We're turning into numb consumers, on the whole. Not to be too dramatic or anything, but I see the taint of that consumerism in most of these posts.

You may say "artists have to eat too" which is the common response. Yeah, well, so do people who work at McDonald's and they don't get paid shit either. To become rich in this country you have to play the game, whichever one that is you happen to choose, the insurance game or the retail game or the art game. Playing these games only reinforces the so called "reality of the day" because reality, in this instance, is what everyone else is doing and, newsflash, you are everyone else.

The only hope art has in this country of becoming appreciated for what it is rather than it's value as a product is a massive shift in the consciousness of the public. That's not gonna happen if we compromise. A few compromises here and there might make things better for artists financially but it won't do anything for art.

I doubt any of you make electronic music to get rich. I just see the insidious tendrils of consumerism peeking out behind a lot of your words. And this is not an admonishment, just an observation.

I can appreciate that, but I do think it is somewhat overly critical of the state we find ourselves in.

At no point do I recall anyone here ever espousing to achieving any degree of wealth from their art. What I do see are people who want to invest more time, more energy, and yes, more money into their work. It isnt really an artists-have-to-eat-too issue, although this is certainly a reality we all face.

To maintain and adhere to the ideal of countercommercial/counterconsumerism in the name of art is a wonderful thing, and deserves credit and respect, but at the possibly expense of its own development? Everybody is different, especially (definingly) so with artists. Our goals are as diverse as our respective styles.

For instance, say Mercedes came along and said "Yo Cyxeris, we like your music and would like to hire you to create the music for a series of 6 high-energy auto ads. We'd like to offer you $10,000 per instance, and would like to complete the series over the course of the year," I can tell you what I would be doing. I would be on the phone with a CD duplication house setting up for the first 5000 copies of my CD to be printed, on the phone with Sweetwater paying retail for all of the software I used to make the CD, I would be paying off all of the delinquent bills I have accumulated, trademarking "Cyxeris" and my symbol, establishing independent record label as an SMLLC in Florida, setting up a dedicated server somewhere where everyone here will be free to host their music, streaming and everything, registering all my domain names, making a respectible contribution to electro-music.com, and that would all be from the first check. Not to mention the possibiliy of being about to leave my day job and invest an additional 40 hours a week into my art.

This is a facilitator. Would this make me a whore? Maybe, but a whore who applied a cost/benefit analysis to the issue and came out far in advance with advantages to burn. I would happily whore myself in such a fashion (Whereas I would never allow one of my pre-existing works to be used in a commercial). One's ideals concerning art are one thing, but how one interfaces this art with the real world and how this interfacing can be used to bennefit everyone involved is not something I think destroys one's integrity as an artist. If you can do all these things and also eat as a result, you can live your work.

Or you can work at McDonalds. Up to you. It all boils down to your values and how much of a martyr one chooses to be in the face of alternatives that can go a long way towards facilitating your goals, which are, of course, different for everyone.

Cyx_________________∆ Cyx ∆

"Yeah right, who's the only one here who knows secret illegal ninja moves from the government?"
-Napoleon Dynamite

I do not believe in the myth of the starving artist. If someone will comission music.. well.. great..
I fully believe that money and fame CAN be the motivation for people doing electronic music. Some breeds of electronic music , like techno and d&b did in fact earn some money for labels and some artists.
I also believe that money is not what motivates MOST of us. I believe most us makes music just because we want to do music. It is that simple. Anyway, the initial motivation does not make the music bad or good._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

I do not believe in the myth of the starving artist. If someone will comission music.. well.. great..
I fully believe that money and fame CAN be the motivation for people doing electronic music. Some breeds of electronic music , like techno and d&b did in fact earn some money for labels and some artists.
I also believe that money is not what motivates MOST of us. I believe most us makes music just because we want to do music. It is that simple. Anyway, the initial motivation does not make the music bad or good.

No, exactly, and there needs to be a seperation between considering music an end, a goal, a motivator, and thinking of it as a facilitator, a catalyst, a tool. You can use it to your advantage, or allow it to poison you, but these are not one and the same. In practice, they may coincide, but that does not mean they are one and the same._________________∆ Cyx ∆

"Yeah right, who's the only one here who knows secret illegal ninja moves from the government?"
-Napoleon Dynamite

Am I the only one here who thinks we need to completely tear away from the established order that regards art as a commodity? This issue runs much deeper for me than just artist's getting their due in the form of checks. The U.S. is spiritually bankrupt and I think it's largely due to our total disrespect for creativity, experimentation and humour. We're turning into numb consumers, on the whole. Not to be too dramatic or anything, but I see the taint of that consumerism in most of these posts.

In many ways, art has from way back been a commodity. This is not a new invention. The artist, as a producer of art and earning his money from making art.. is also an old concept. Art for the sake of art is a relatively new concept. Historically neither of these have been connected to consumerism or in opposition to consumerism ( which is a really modern concept ).

I am frankly not sure about that part about the US being spiritually bankrupt. I would like some examples. I can agree with there being some trends going on etc. etc. Your great chairman of the People´s republic of the United States might possibly do better as a garden pixie.
... but I cannot quite believe the bit about "disrespect for creativity, experimentation and humour"_________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

first i wanted to thank all of you guys for the privelege to discuss
these issues with you all...

---elektro 80, it was your last post before mine that inspired my long post..i always find your points to always be very well balanced and thought provoking in the most positive way and often downright inspiring

---noiseusse wrote:

Quote:

A few compromises here and there might make things better for artists financially but it won't do anything for art.

a good and challenging point... but what i mean here by 'compromise' is a lot more positive than that and might be similar to 'co-operation'...

in our personal relationships we have to make compromises in order to live together and communicate..no man is an island

artists have to make compromises in order to 'live with' the society that we have inextricable relationships with .or we may end up making music that is alienating or has no regard for the Other and fails to change the world

by'compromising' we are modifiying the musical langauge just enough so that it is understood and communicated by other people..as many people as possible..with the goal of changing the world

if we just used some kind of private musical langauge, we would fail to communicate to a large audience and the musical vision- like a battered flag of a defeated republic , waving to no one - would be lost

for some artists this may involve coming out of a shell or an ego that is currently protecting the self from reality and is essentially a selfish position...

i.e. 'i make music for me and me alone..no matter the 'audience[cuz they are dumb anyway]

instead we can say 'i have a vision i need to communicate..what is the best way to do this for the most people and effectively change the world a little''

and invariably this involves a shared langaugeand shared langauges require compromises that form a web of co-operative symbols

but just in case you are worried, i do think that avant garde and experimental music is ULTRA ULTRA important..and i work in these areas myself..

and i do feel that this 'compromise' is a tightrope walk and only for the most visionary, dedicated individuals who can maintain the rigour and integrity of 'art' but find a way to transmit that vision to the world through shared langauge

In regard to "changing the world" or changing people's conception of music, I think an artist has two options:

1) Make music more accessible to more listeners through compromise and acceptance of current trends in music. Gradual change in public conception can occur through this, and seems to occur easier if sounds or styles that are already accepted by the public are used to some extent.

or

2) Go the way of the avant garde. The unfortunate aspect of this route is that an avant garde artist may make brilliant material that will eventually be cherished by general society, but it seems that a widespread societal appreciation and acceptance of different music does not occur until long after the artist is dead. I can think of a lot of painters that fit this model of artists, whose works were not fully appreciated until 50-100 years after their creation.

instead we can say 'i have a vision i need to communicate..what is the best way to do this for the most people and effectively change the world a little''

and invariably this involves a shared langauge and shared langauges require compromises that form a web of co-operative symbols

but just in case you are worried, i do think that avant garde and experimental music is ULTRA ULTRA important..and i work in these areas myself..

and i do feel that this 'compromise' is a tightrope walk and only for the most visionary, dedicated individuals who can maintain the rigour and integrity of 'art' but find a way to transmit that vision to the world through shared langauge

Well, said. That's basically why I started this site. The idea is we would support each other and thus support the music. Money or no money, musicians need an audience. The store is one way. Uploading mp3 and ogg files is another. If the music industry doesn't foster the music, then we will do it ourselves. I'm trying to do what Cyx envisions.

It is a bit ironic that this discussion was started by a famous rock star, not frustrated incestuous whining avant-garde electro-musicians.

What I see that seems to start alot of conflict amongst people like us is a uniform handling of everyone's work. It's all equal, it is all valid, and it is all respected.

But it is not all the same, and the purpose and intent of each of us with respect to our work is different. What I see happen, from myself right in there, is inadvertantly applying the standards (whatever these may be) we set and adhere to for our own work to the works of others, or the goals of others. What I want to do is not what Electro80 wants to do, which is not what Mosc wants to do or Seraph or Mezmer or Sudden or Noiseusse or whomever.

In recognizing this, it is important that we celebrate our differences (how jacked up and boring would this place be with nothing but a bunch of Cyxerises running around? I wouldnt come here if that were the case) and come together to pursue our similarities together, en masse. We do not all agree that one should pursue profitable avenue to support one's work, but I think we do all agree that ones work must always ne honest and true, and should always be accessable to one's potential audiences. On this I think we all agree. If we focus on our common goals, and the universal problems facing them, and do so in a spirit of unity, I think we could, in time, make some fantastic inroads in achieving these goals.

If a place to store everyone's music as MP3's is a common need amongst us, then let those with the resources to make that happen pursue that goal, and if successful, we all bennefit. Everyone here has some avenue of opportunity (multiple perhaps) that could benefit everybody. We all need hosting space, we all need to eat, these are very real necessities. Working together should ultimately proove far simpler and efficient than going it alone, even when our differences may appear to put us at odds with one another from time to time. That is a natural part of progress.

Cyx_________________∆ Cyx ∆

"Yeah right, who's the only one here who knows secret illegal ninja moves from the government?"
-Napoleon Dynamite

I can think of a lot of painters that fit this model of artists, whose works were not fully appreciated until 50-100 years after their creation.

Luckily for us, the information age has arguably diminished the need for such sacrafices of time. The discourse of information has made the dissemination of new ideas and new works, in principle, immediately accessable globally. The barrier that seemed to demand that a century pass before a work fell on appreciating eyes and ears is largely no more, and good riddance. Now the issue has more to do with getting people's attention (marketing, promotion) than anything, including accessability.

Cyx_________________∆ Cyx ∆

"Yeah right, who's the only one here who knows secret illegal ninja moves from the government?"
-Napoleon Dynamite

First off, why all the excitement over Henley's statement? It's nothing new. Lots of people have been saying the same things for a long time now. Because Don Henley said it?

Blessed be the artist that just happens to write what people want to hear for they shall inherit the $. If you don't, and you're true to what the muse whispers in your ear, then you better keep the day job. Mercedes is not likely to call.

I believe art plants a seed in people even if they don't like what they see or hear when first confronted with it. But only if you're true to the art. I don't think it's selfish ego because I don't think it necessarily comes from me. I see myself as a hollow bone. It comes through me. You compromise, you dilute it. You're not giving them the vision you had, you adapting it to fit the one they've already got.

Those that work to make their 'art' acceptable to others are craftsmen. That requires much talent & skill, and gets my respect, but it's a different thing. (And yes, I recognize that talent, skill, and craft are required in order to 'realize' a piece of art)

The fact 'new' ideas are immediately accessable on a global scale is countered to a significant extent by the fact that everybody is disseminating them constantly. Get your 15 minutes while it lasts.

America is numb. In all sorts of ways. That's the way the corporate structure want us because 1) it's easier to keep shoveling the same old thing rather than take the effort to give us something really new and 2) it's better if we don't think. Keep us complacent. They don't want individual art patrons, they want a mass of cooperative consumers. And it's spreading across the planet. You want examples? Look at a best seller book list. Cormac McCarthy for example wrote a whole series of great novels, but had to write a piece of lame cowboy crap before they gave him the National Book Award and made a movie out of All the Pretty Horses. Look at the new releases in the viddy store. Check out the Grammys. Who are those people? Americans will eat anything if you put enough sugar on it. After a while they'll just eat anything.

But whatever. I hope we all make great art and big money. _________________Que la musique sonne - Edgard Varese

I was seriously tempted to give up everything and go be a farmer or something... - Jack Endino, Seattle record producer

I believe art plants a seed in people even if they don't like what they see or hear when first confronted with it. But only if you're true to the art. I don't think it's selfish ego because I don't think it necessarily comes from me. I see myself as a hollow bone. It comes through me. You compromise, you dilute it. You're not giving them the vision you had, you adapting it to fit the one they've already got.

Right on the nose ::) Already, transferring the experience from something that is personal and internal into something that is external, tangible and possibly universal is a huuuuuge compromise. That's what we're limited to because we aren't all telepathic. To dilute it further is, in essence, to scorn the experience, vision, etc., that spawned the art in the first place, to kill the only part of the art that's really important: that which is independent of its form.

Quote:

Those that work to make their 'art' acceptable to others are craftsmen. That requires much talent & skill, and gets my respect, but it's a different thing. (And yes, I recognize that talent, skill, and craft are required in order to 'realize' a piece of art)

Yes, a completely different matter is craft for sale. I'm trying to get the point across that we are turning all art into craft for sale. That's what I mean by commodification of art. It's like people calling twinkies food. I feel a responsibility as an artist to try and stem this imbalance and put the emphasis back on experience and growth rather than stuff and stimulation.

Quote:

The fact 'new' ideas are immediately accessable on a global scale is countered to a significant extent by the fact that everybody is disseminating them constantly. Get your 15 minutes while it lasts.

I think it's great. The more people that make art and spread it around the better. Fuck fame. I mean that in the most liberating way possible ::)

Quote:

America is numb...After a while they'll just eat anything.

Yeah, but it's not hopeless. People all over the place delude themselves into thinkinng they will be happy if they just follow the right formula. It doesn't work and we all know it doesn't work somewhere in there. Art can trick people into stepping outside of their comfort zones and realizing the source of their discontent. That line in Crash says it perfectly: "...a benevolent psychopathology." That's what we can create to change the world, a hot poker that cauterizes the wounds caused by this inhumane culture and hurts just enough that it cuts through the numbing fog of desensitization so we can feel again.

Don't give people what they want. It's bad for them. It's just as bad as giving a junkie more junk. On the same token, I don't pretend to know what is art and what is not. I don't think there's a particular form or format that is more or less twinkie-like. Rather, there are degrees to which an artist censors the art and this comes through in the art regardless of form. Intentions do matter.

I really like the way this thread has turned out, its a classic and should be stored in the archives.

My opinions on the matter have mostly be covered but I would just like to say that I dont think artists should ever HAVE to compromise, but if they want to they can, popular music maybe suffering a bit at the moment but its not completely invalid, in the 80's almost every other tune in the top 40 had least some merit, in the 90's you had the KLF (look em up if you havent heard of them http://www.klf.de/home/ , they burned a million pounds of their royalties in the name of art) and the orb in the uk charts...can you imagine them having a hit nowadays?but still, Popular culture has a lot of capacity to embrace the more experimental unusal side of art, if its given a chance.

this is true in a strictly academic sense, but does not address what i meant

i should have avoided the word 'compromise' as i knew some wou;d take the owrd literally and react emotionally..

what i mean by compromise is 'translating a vision' into a langauge everyone can hopefully understand

a new word for it = 'communication'

if one's art is obtuse and isolates the vast majority of people, the art has failed to be useful

therefore some devices are needed to communicate the vision in ways people can understand, and this challnges the artist to transmit the 'pure vision' but put it in terms and symbols at least more than a few peple can understand

this of course assumes that one of the main goals of art is 'mass communication'

art can be communicated to the masses, but needs modified from the artists' original 'super natural' nebulous Idea/ vision, to something practical that everyday people can use to better their lives

this does not mean catering to people's base desires or lowest common denominator or 'diluting'..not at all

compromise is a 'meeting half way'...approx. anyway

and if an artist does not go through this process and the art alienates then perhaps it is not art at all..as it fails to communicate to people..

and noiseusse, you may want to consider that you seem to have a conflictory 'us against them' vibe when it comes to the audience...a kind of disdain that must be off-putting to potential listeners..potentially isolating you from your audience..

i think you should have more faith in people and perhaps look inward rather than blaming the audience...

maybe instead look at your own art and see if perhaps there are ways you can modify your own music so that it can communicate to 8 billion people but still retains the original intent and integrity

this is true in a strictly academic sense, but does not address what i meant

It's not very academic to me. To me it's very personal and very spiritual. Hehe, "spiritual" is another scary word.

Quote:

i should have avoided the word 'compromise' as i knew some wou;d take the owrd literally and react emotionally..

Wow, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Is there something wrong with being emotional? Is emotion so awful that we must avoid situations in which we may cause others to feel? Perhaps America isn't numb, perhaps it's walking around on eggshells all the time. Yes, "We're letting you go" is a lot less emotionally charged than "You're fired." It's also a lot less honest.

Quote:

what i mean by compromise is 'translating a vision' into a langauge everyone can hopefully understand

That's what I thought you meant.

Quote:

a new word for it = 'communication'

if one's art is obtuse and isolates the vast majority of people, the art has failed to be useful

Useful in what way? As a drug, escape, etc.? As a reinforcement of banality? Yep, total failure. Thank jeebis.

Alienation is a possible consequence of trying something new. I would never have even conceived of something like noise music, let alone liked it, if no one had ever made it because they were too afraid of alienating someone. To be honest, I see a lot of fringe music as an expression of alienation and through the music, people who felt totally alone, or at least in some areas of their lives, came together and created a community around that sound, that expression. And so what was once the cry of the pariah becomes the voice of a community.

Quote:

therefore some devices are needed to communicate the vision in ways people can understand, and this challnges the artist to transmit the 'pure vision' but put it in terms and symbols at least more than a few peple can understand

There is nothing you or I can make that less than a few people will understand. Mostly, there's nothing you or I can make that someone else isn't making as well. And besides, art has always had radical differences in interpretation from person to person. If it doesn't, then it's nothing more than a word in the proverbial dictionary.

Quote:

this of course assumes that one of the main goals of art is 'mass communication'

That's quite an assumption. I've always considered the main goal of art to be art. That's something most artists can agree on. The rest is endless projections of value systems onto something that's too complex and mercurial to be pinned down. Hmmm, kinda like what we're doing now.

Quote:

art can be communicated to the masses, but needs modified from the artists' original 'super natural' nebulous Idea/ vision, to something practical that everyday people can use to better their lives

Why? I accede that an artist must transform their vision into something others can experience otherwise it's just what I like to call "thinking and feeling", but why does it have to be something everyone gets?

Quote:

this does not mean catering to people's base desires or lowest common denominator or 'diluting'..not at all

compromise is a 'meeting half way'...approx. anyway

and if an artist does not go through this process and the art alienates then perhaps it is not art at all..as it fails to communicate to people..

I still don't understad what you mean by communicate. When you create an external representation of a thought and other people become exposed to it, that's communication. Saying "Fuck you" to someone is communicating. They don't have to feel comfortable to have received the message.

Quote:

and noiseusse, you may want to consider that you seem to have a conflictory 'us against them' vibe when it comes to the audience...a kind of disdain that must be off-putting to potential listeners..potentially isolating you from your audience..

My audience, however small it may be, is compromised of people who, among other things, enjoy intolerable noise. There is this place I find only in intense noise where you sort of float above it all and it feels like a transcendence of bullshit but it is attained by coming face to face with bullshit. Maybe it's not your thing but I have more than once used the words "shithead" and "fucker" as terms of endearment. I'm guessing you don't get sado-masochism either but that doesn't mean it can't be a healthy expression of sexuality.

Quote:

i think you should have more faith in people and perhaps look inward rather than blaming the audience...

I don't think I've even used the word audience in any previous posts, but just to clarify, I don't blame anyone except those who willingly trample on their art out of some kind of fear. There is nothing wrong with making music that is accessible to a lot of people--please understand this distinction--as long as it's what inspires you. If you censor your art to be more accomodating then you are insulting the art, you are willingly devitalizing the creative force. It's a symptom of our culture. Everywhere you look humans are dominating nature in order to feel more comfortable, more secure. Creativity has not escaped this slaughter. Excuse my vulgarity, but Life is not fucking pleasant. Sometimes, yeah, but to say life can be all roses is to miss the point.

Let me explain why:
Making people comfortable every moment of their lives requires more than a liittle bit of lying. And people who are comfortable because they're being kept in the dark, whether a self-imposed darkness or not, will never be happy because there's been no challenge to the monotony of comfort to shed light on the difference between happiness and unhappiness. Challenge throws the difference into sharp relief. When challenged we reevaluate our maps of reality, if only subconsciously, and end up letting a little bit more of the world in, giving us that much more of a capacity for experiencing happiness and unhappiness. That's the only thing we can control. The world is in constant flux and terribly unpleasant things are happening all the time. If we close off then we might not get hurt as much, but we miss the opportunity to experience joy and also just the opportunity to experience, period.

I have no malice towards people. I am the person I am and I must express that experience as best I can or else I feel like a liar and I preclude any possibility of creating something new that will bring never-before-experienced joy to others.

As far as faith is concerned, I don't believe you are in any position to tell me how much or little of it I posess.

Quote:

maybe instead look at your own art and see if perhaps there are ways you can modify your own music so that it can communicate to 8 billion people but still retains the original intent and integrity

A person can't even say "Hello" to 8 billion people at the same time. To say one can communicate a complex emotional experience which is largely culturally dependent to the entire human race is absurd. My goal is much less grandiose. I strive to communicate honestly with anyone who cares to listen, and listen to others attentively, though I don't always succeed.

Quote:

it can be done...and this world needs it now

This world needs a lot of things. I think art , especially music, could use a bit more honesty and integrity to keep it from turning into a twinkie factory. I don't believe that will happen because I have faith in humanity. That doesn't mean I should watch the destruction of something I hold dear without making a peep.

wohoo, I think this all started a long time ago like most things didn't just came to life through internet "NO" internet makes to process only quicker I find.

The artist in general wasn't in a much better position in the 70ies allready if I think of stories my dad use to tell me about managers and rec. comps... well I think Don is right but I think this article could have been written allready a long time ago when internet was still militarynet or freaknet. hrhr.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.